Practising Anti-LGBTIQ+ Institutionalism: The Behaviour of Anti-LGBTIQ+ Groups in the Italian and Portuguese Parliament

In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on LGBTIQ+ issues within academic literature, particularly in the field of social movement studies. Indeed, the emergence and proliferation of the so- called anti-gender and anti-LGBTIQ+ movements has led to a notable rise in interest in this area. Recent studies have noted the strong connection between the latter movements and political parties in parliament, highlighting the increasingly close relationship between the two in terms of electoral support, on the one hand, and agenda-setting, on the other. The present paper aims to investigate the behaviour of anti-LGBTIQ+ political groups within institutions, with a particular focus on the Italian and Portuguese Parliament. The two countries offer interesting case studies due to their similarities across a number of dimensions considered important for the success of LGBTIQ+ policies (economic conditions, population religiosity, public opinion, demographic composition) and the presence of anti-LGBTIQ+ groups in parliament, particularly Chega in Portugal and Lega and Fratelli d'Italia in Italy. Nonetheless, they show different LGBTIQ+ policy trajectories: in fact, Portugal is regarded as progressive, while Italy is regarded as backward in the EU according to the ILGA index. The analysis is conducted from the perspective of the behaviour exhibited by anti-LGBTIQ+ groups within the two parliaments, drawing upon an extensive examination of the legislative activity, with a focus on the legislative process of anti- and pro-LGBTIQ+ bills. First, the comparative analysis focuses on the conditions for the transmission of anti- and pro-LGBTIQ+ bills (i.e. who, when, and under what conditions advances the proposals). Secondly, the paper investigates the behaviour of anti-LGBTIQ+ groups during the process of anti- and pro-bills: e.g., amendments, hearings, committees, preliminary questions, duration of interventions in the Assembly if they reach the point of debate, etc. Finally, it addresses the outcome of the bills. The work will be supplemented with the results of a survey conducted on a selection of current and former MPs from both countries, in order to gain an “insider” perspective from the parliamentary committees where the bills were discussed.